UPC

Little CuChulainn

I'm not sure what the issue is. Did they cancel your service a day early?

Losty Dublin

RM8849 wrote: »

We decided to leave UPC as although we were on a premium package, our broadband was slow and tv was not great. We gave 30 days notice and they cut our service off on Day 29, on a Saturday. Despite numerous calls to the technical team nobody could reactivate our service, despite them admitting their mistake. I am now delayed in submitting a very important piece of work and this will reflect badly on me in my job. Another person in my house will be late submitting a piece of college work and will lose 10% in grades due to UPC's negligence. When a company is in serious breach of contract you would imagine they would react to a complaint pretty quickly, however I had to follow up numerous times this weekend to see if they would resolve the issue (as promised when the original complaint was made). Serious waste of my time and am very disappointed. Word of warning to anyone considering using UPC in the future.

If these projects were so critical on having broadband in the house then surely you should have had an alternative broadband service in place until they were submitted if you knew you were disconnecting from UPC. Cutting you off a day early didn't help, granted, but it's hardly the reason why they were all late.

FreudianSlippers

RM8849 wrote: »

We decided to leave UPC as although we were on a premium package, our broadband was slow and tv was not great. We gave 30 days notice and they cut our service off on Day 29, on a Saturday. Despite numerous calls to the technical team nobody could reactivate our service, despite them admitting their mistake. I am now delayed in submitting a very important piece of work and this will reflect badly on me in my job. Another person in my house will be late submitting a piece of college work and will lose 10% in grades due to UPC's negligence. When a company is in serious breach of contract you would imagine they would react to a complaint pretty quickly, however I had to follow up numerous times this weekend to see if they would resolve the issue (as promised when the original complaint was made). Serious waste of my time and am very disappointed. Word of warning to anyone considering using UPC in the future.

I think you'll find in the contract that it is 30 days notice to them, not 30 days service after notification. They are only obliged to provide service for the next billing month (not the 30 days)

Calahonda52

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Why does everyone think that TV/broadband should be some sort of free/cost next to nothing service without a contract period? If you laid thousands of miles of cable infrastructure would you not expect to make a profit?

If you don't like it get a library card read by candle light and drink your own... anyway.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/net-results-consumers-face-unequal-battle-doing-business-online-1.2091428
Seems to suggest that its big FDI being supported by Government to screw the consumer, just as on medicines, fuel,electricity, gas, drink,food, the list goes on

MarkAnthony

Calahonda52 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/net-results-consumers-face-unequal-battle-doing-business-online-1.2091428
Seems to suggest that its big FDI being supported by Government to screw the consumer, just as on medicines, fuel,electricity, gas, drink,food, the list goes on

Interesting article but the the reason it's 'difficult' to cancel in the telco sector is all of them have a retention team to try and stop people leaving. If legislation was brought in to remove these I'm sure the likes of Sky, UPC etc would allow cancellations online. As it is deals are individually negotiated to keep customers.

As it stands people who can negotiate get good deals. If it wasn't that way we'd see a couple of quid difference if cost, a couple of small differences in service and people would pay largely the same. I'm sure the telco's would be delighted.

There already is a 'new provider only contact' system in place for eircom based broadband services. In all honesty the hype surrounding people getting screwed over is exactly that for the most part.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Why on earth would you want legislation to remove retention teams? If I was a business and wanted to keep a customer, how on earth am I supposed to try and retain you if I don't have properly skilled staff to do so?

Deals being negotiated individually is a plus for me. Every year I get a better package or discount from various providers because I bother my arse to contact them to negotiate. If you are not bothered to ring them, that's your own fault.

I do think that the whole area of notice periods should be regulated better. As it is stands, it is a bit of a grey area. But a lot of issues are because people don't bother to read the contract they sign. Look at the OP as an example.
RM8849's example above is more a common sense issue IMHO. If I had something that was so critical to send, I'd make sure I had a backup solution. I mean what would he/she had done if there was a technical fault?
How many threads have popped up along the lines of "I paid for year and that's it, why are they still billing me. I never agreed to a rolling contract. etc. etc." Again this can't be covered by legislation and shouldn't need to be. It's generally covered in the contract you signed!

beauf

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Interesting article but the the reason it's 'difficult' to cancel in the telco sector i...As it stands people who can negotiate get good deals. ......

I suspect you happy with this, until you find out someone is getting a better than you, then you might no be so happy.

its not just about cancelling, or just getting a new contract. Trying to get companies to stick to a deal when you've no records of the deal. Every year how much time is wasted sitting on a phone to renegotiate something with should a standard price for the same service. I assume that most people don't sign up to BB to UPC to practise their negotiation skills.

Then what if you have a problem. Trying to sort out a problem with UPC, either technical or billing, is a nightmare. Wastes loads of time for no reason at all.

MarkAnthony

Edgar Brave Boat wrote: »

Why on earth would you want legislation to remove retention teams? If I was a business and wanted to keep a customer, how on earth am I supposed to try and retain you if I don't have properly skilled staff to do so?

Deals being negotiated individually is a plus for me. Every year I get a better package or discount from various providers because I bother my arse to contact them to negotiate. If you are not bothered to ring them, that's your own fault.

It's a better deal for me too but the reason a legislative solution is needed is is one won't get rid until they all get rid. I suppose the idea option would be to give customers a choice but it would give the game away somewhat if you were phoning rather than just sticking in a cancellation online.

That said many consumers are literally terrified of being on the phone. I dunno why but as many people as possible need to be accounted for.

Edgar Brave Boat wrote: »

I do think that the whole area of notice periods should be regulated better. As it is stands, it is a bit of a grey area. But a lot of issues are because people don't bother to read the contract they sign. Look at the OP as an example.

Yes and no imho. 30 days notice is fairly standard and people just like to gove out about it. Really all that needs to be covered off is:

(i) Notice periods should be allowed to be given within the contract period - they are at the moment but better consumer awareness is needed, enforcement needs to happen for companies that obfuscate this.

(ii) Cooling off should be extended and ideally have an element of service active before it expires. This is problematic because who foots install/activation costs?

Edgar Brave Boat wrote: »

RM8849's example above is more a common sense issue IMHO. If I had something that was so critical to send, I'd make sure I had a backup solution. I mean what would he/she had done if there was a technical fault?
How many threads have popped up along the lines of "I paid for year and that's it, why are they still billing me. I never agreed to a rolling contract. etc. etc." Again this can't be covered by legislation and shouldn't need to be. It's generally covered in the contract you signed!

Yes but there is an element of contracts being so complicated, standard and non-negotiable hence why consumer legislation is needed. There is also all sorts of little shenanigans that go on.

beauf wrote: »

I suspect you happy with this, until you find out someone is getting a better than you, then you might no be so happy.

This is the common issue and why so many people get pissy. Mr. Jones is getting a better deal than Mr. Smith. I just worry about me, if I think a deals is better for me I go for that deal. The solution is to prevent deals happening though legislation, through introductory deals or through retention deals; thus making pricing transparent.

The problem is they'll be no churn in the industry because of the perceived 'hassle' of switching. This could, I suppose, be over come by educating the customer.

beauf wrote: »

its not just about cancelling, or just getting a new contract. Trying to get companies to stick to a deal when you've no records of the deal. Every year how much time is wasted sitting on a phone to renegotiate something with should a standard price for the same service. I assume that most people don't sign up to BB to UPC to practise their negotiation skills.

No but its exactly the same bollocks you go through with home, car, life insurance. Again the telcos would be delighted if there was a fixed, transparent price but everyone needs to get on that bandwagon or they all need to continue as is to maintain a level playing field.

beauf wrote: »

Then what if you have a problem. Trying to sort out a problem with UPC, either technical or billing, is a nightmare. Wastes loads of time for no reason at all.

But people don't buy on service they buy on price. But again a lot of this is overhyped. I've never found UPC's broadband CS to be anything other than excellent.

Other providers are well known for being an absolute nightmare but if it saves €3 a month people will flock to them.

beauf

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I...No but its exactly the same bollocks you go through with home, car, life insurance. Again the telcos would be delighted if there was a fixed, transparent price but everyone needs to get on that bandwagon or they all need to continue as is to maintain a level playing field.

With those others I can get a written quote before I commit. Not agree one thing over the phone and get something else on your first bill. You don't have anything like the billing issues with those other services. Ever tried to get a refund from UPC. Nigh impossible.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

But people don't buy on service they buy on price. But again a lot of this is overhyped. I've never found UPC's broadband CS to be anything other than excellent..


Other providers are well known for being an absolute nightmare but if it saves €3 a month people will flock to them.

I think you are wrong grossly exaggerated. Lots of people are getting UPC over cheaper BB. Because it faster. Many are getting UPC for BB and Sky for TV. When its dearer combination. Many people buy different health insurance or car insurance packages because they include other features then base package.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

With those others I can get a written quote before I commit. Not agree one thing over the phone and get something else on your first bill. You don't have anything like the billing issues with those other services. Ever tried to get a refund from UPC. Nigh impossible.

I've never needed too. I've had my share of consumer issues but it seems some people attract them!

beauf wrote: »

I think you are wrong grossly exaggerated. Lots of people are getting UPC over cheaper BB. Because it faster. Many are getting UPC for BB and Sky for TV. When its dearer combination. Many people buy different health insurance or car insurance packages because they include other features then base package.

People rarely consider their needs. I'm in a relatively good position to comment on this. People don't consider what they watching and frequently lie/don't realise what they do actually watch. Why people are paying for Sky when they want RTE and a bit of background noise is beyond me!

Why people insists on bundling is beyond me, especially when they have the Sky/UPC combo available.

Who actually uses >50Mbit of speed? The only time I go near that is when I'm downloading a game off steam. If I can afford €50 for something to waste hours on I can afford to buy broadband.

People will see something slightly cheaper and they jump on it, despite it being crap. E-vision and Sky's bundled DSL out in certain areas of Dublin (3 Mbit Hello!!!) are two examples.

People will go further and say well I can download Game of Thrones etc. some truth to that but to my mind it's not a great idea to pirate a great show if you expect more of the same to be made. Just me and my odd ideas I like getting it off Sky Atlantic.

Bet your arse I have Netflix though! Better Call Saul

beauf

If you haven't a wide range of experience, of different problems and different types of user, you're not going to be best placed the appreciate the various issues.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

If you haven't a wide range of experience, of different problems and different types of user, you're not going to be best placed the appreciate the various issues.

I do, daily, including today

beauf

You've become normalised to dire service then if think this kind of poor customer service is normal. Or that bartering as if on a market stall for a standard service is normal for a major tech company in 2015.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n3LL338aGA

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

You've become normalised to dire service then if think this kind of poor customer service is normal. Or that bartering as if on a market stall for a standard service is normal for a major tech company in 2015.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n3LL338aGA

What part of me saying I think it should probably be stamped out by legislation did you miss? However telco's would be delighted with that as it would be massively more profitable.

It's also not bad service to try and keep a customer if they have a genuine issue with payment. That said few actually do IMHO.

I'm sorry but you strike me as the sort of person who thinks everyone is against them in in sort of thing and that probably why you experaince so many issues. In over 20 years of having internet and TV I've had a billing issue once - Eircom and that was only becuase of the cack handed way they bill.

beauf

By your logic its your fault not Errorcom's that they billed you incorrectly. Its a perception that everyone is out to get you, and not really fault of their system.

I must explain that to the elderly neighbour that the reason their monitored alarm no longer works is not because UPC switched off their phone line, but because they've got a persecution complex.

Because I never had a problem with UPC it stands to reason no one else would either.

MarkAnthony

I really don't know where you're going with this. It's strayed so far off the topic of a legal discussion at this stage. In short:

Given the lack of many consumers ability to negotiate 'retentions' should probably be stamped out by legislation. Comreg have already indicated they weren't happy with the process in relation to Eircom. That said some would object to that see the posts furthur up.

Processes should be streamlined to allow people to move more freely and generate longterm transparent pricing and real competition. That said a large number of the issues are caused by user error in not reading contracts/notice periods. Yes misselling goes on and a good company will do one of to things;

(i) admit they are wrong and stand over it
(ii) admit they are wrong and release the customer from the contract

there should not be a requirement for a company to stand over a genuinely costly mistake except where they have caused the customer real cost in a missell incidental to the services offered.

The reason this needs legislation, or atleast a code of practice is if one continue all need to continue to keep a level playing field.

beauf

Its got nothing to do with an ability to haggle.

If you can order online, get though to sales immediately. But can't do other support issues specifically where its to the companies advantage for a slow resolution. It's at best happy coincidence, at worse a deliberate policy.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

Its got nothing to do with an ability to haggle.

If you can order online, get though to sales immediately. But can't do other support issues specifically where its to the companies advantage for a slow resolution. It's at best happy coincidence, at worse a deliberate policy.

Sorry what are you talking about now?

Of course companies make you wait to get through to the cancelations teams. Thats easily resolved by impsoing a CoP of allowing customers to canx by giving notice in writing. AFAIK UPC allow that by email and letter.

beauf

That would work well for that elderly couple wouldn't. 30 days notice to get your alarm back.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

That would work well for that elderly couple wouldn't. 30 days notice to get your alarm back.

So that needs to be managed through - if the company one is dealing with won't do that then don't give them the business. Again I'm not seeing you point from a legal discussions perspective.

There is also a regulator to make a complaint to if the product was missold.

beauf

I don't think you'll get it until you've personal experience of the issues. Hence the fixation on cancellations and renewals. Endless phones calls that give the customer no record or tracking of the conversation or issue is no way to provide support or resolve issues. It's that obstruction of process that the legislation seeks to address.

beauf

I have no idea what the regulator does. Or what they have achieved. Companies seem to operate with impunity.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

I don't think you'll get it until you've personal experience of the issues. Hence the fixation on cancellations and renewals. Endless phones calls that give the customer no record or tracking of the conversation or issue is no way to provide support or resolve issues. It's that obstruction of process that the legislation seeks to address.

I have daily exposure to it from the otherside. Mistakes happen, waits happen, customers should be able to canx with a simple letter if they wish but many people make a rod for their own back.

Companies will only offer something if they're on a level playing field.

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

I have no idea what the regulator does. Or what they have achieved. Companies seem to operate with impunity.

They've managed to impliment a porting service within the Eircom infastructure with no downtime to the customer. They've sucesfully allowed competiton within the broadband market.

Companies are frequently slapped by comreg, but it's not Judge Judy for every small complaint; thats voting with your feet.

sky6

beauf wrote: »

I don't think you'll get it until you've personal experience of the issues. Hence the fixation on cancellations and renewals. Endless phones calls that give the customer no record or tracking of the conversation or issue is no way to provide support or resolve issues. It's that obstruction of process that the legislation seeks to address.

I totally agree with you. Also if they record your conversation then they should have to supply a copy on request.

billy few mates

sky6 wrote: »

I totally agree with you. Also if they record your conversation then they should have to supply a copy on request.

I've done this twice in the past, I asked the person on the end of the line for a transcript of the recording that they told me was being made at the start of the call. On one occasion I was told I couldn't have it, I told them I would then like them to acknowledge my request in writing and their reason for refusal, and they transferred me over to a supervisor. I chanced my arm and said that they were legally obliged to provide me with a copy under the terms of the data protection act, after a few minutes on hold they resolved the original dispute by giving me what I was asking for...
On the second occasion I was disputing a charge I was being asked to pay, they also refused to provide me with a copy I told them I wouldn't pay the charge until they provided the transcript and that if they wanted to go to court I would use their refusal as the basis of my defence. They decided to waive the charge....

beauf

I was asked to request it in writing and pay a fee. Which I did. Then they sent out a huge form to fill in as they don't except a hand written request. I got nowhere with it.

You can only assume the only reason to deal with customers in such a inconsistent and inconvenient way is either ineptitude or so customers cant compare their prices.

I still don't understand why there isn't one price for the same services. It's like haggling with a street trader in a market.